I heard this movie was pretty bad, and I read the story and it seems pretty bad, but I am a HUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Phantom fan and I've never seen this. I can't find this to rent. IS IT WORTH BUYING FOR $8.66?
Someone please help me.
Frank Castle is dead. Call me the Punisher.
If you're a slasher fan and Freddy fan especially, I'm pretty sure you'll somehow like it. And if you're a HUGE phantom fan, I guess it's worth the chance. To me it's a great horror movie, but it's only MY opinion. Do you like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie, or Robert Englund? If the answer's yes, don't hesitate and go buy a copy.
shareI agree with the other poster. It is a horror and very much on the gore side. It places the Phantom in London not Paris, but if you don't mind the "slasher" style, and you overlook the move to London, it does, stay close with the book, more or less. I've seen all of the Phantom movies and hated every one of them because I read the book first and the old movies were nothing like the book.
I liked this one and it was for a while the only version I liked. A month agao I would have told you it was my favorite movie--I did say so a while back, somewhere on this message board. But I just saw the new movie at the theaters and it just blew me away! The new one is sooo much better!
Is it worth $8.66. Well, yes, I'd say it is. And if you buy it and than don't like it, you could alway sell it on Amazon or Ebay for about $10-$15 and you'd still not lose anything by buying it.
Huge Phantom Fan? You collect stuff? I love Phantom dolls, but they are so hard to find! I've got one, but it's the only one I could ever find. Do you know of a dealer that sells them? I'd love to get some others.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Crazy is only relative. (Prof. Ludwig Von Drake)
Yeah! Well you can keep your crazy relatives! (Zeke Wolf)
Morons! I'm surrounded by morons! (Scrooge McDuck)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I conquered the world.
~~Scrooge McDuck
Here's what I think:
I am a movie buff AND a horror buff. It's an interesting version of the Phantom that increases his bloodlust 5-fold. And Englund is a real interesting Phantom, nowhere near as sympathetic as Butler's, though.
I enjoyed it. And for that price, what the hell. Go out and get it.
Hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman and Emmy Rossum
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T READ THIS!!!!!
Being a fan of the Lon Chaney phantom, and growing up watching Robert Englund slash randy teenagers to death in the "Nightmare" movies.
I was pretty jazzed about seeing how Robert Englund could make the phantom his own. It was a valiant effort of a movie, but bless his evil little heart, I just don't think he made a very convincing phantom. The character of Erik seemed to mimick some Jack the ripper persona. The phantom killed with orgasmic zeal,and hung around in shady pubs, and hookers.
Not to mention the fact that theyset the Paris opera house in London, made Christines admirer Raoul co manager of the opera house and then changed his name to Richard. They also changed the name of Christine Daee, to Christine Day.
The opening takes place in "today", at the opera house. And accident knocks the auditioning singer, Christine, unconscious. Her dream is some sort of realization or revisiting of the past.
All of the changes must have been put in to give the film uniqueness, as the phantom is so widely known. So I can not blame them for trying, but there were some areas of the film I felt the needed to spend more time on. Such as the ball masque, Simon Buqet, the Persian, and of course the unmasking of the phantom.
Jill Schoelen played Christine who I felt was not apt to the role either.
Or perhaps I am sick of seeing every one play that charcter as a suggestable innocent virgin child. Also noted the director Dwight H. Little, just couldn't help himself having the star of the Nightmare flix. He went with Freddy esk pizza face make up. The phantom also seemed to take on Ed Gein characteristics, as well as Jack the Ripper. But Ed Gein has inspired so many horror villans at that time, so..yeah.
Anyway, the end of the film takes place in the future, or the today rather. Christine awakes to discover that everything was just a dream. Erik has survived however to await her return,he has since become the producer of the opera house, with the help of prosthetic makeup.
Long story short, too late....! When Christine discovers he is Erik, she ripps of his face and kills him. But then every where she goes he will forever be lurking in the shadows and love never dies and blah blah blah.
( your all going to kill me arient you?)
I did however come to love the film just as entertainment, even with the inclusion of Saucy Jack in Erik. It has it's own sort of appeal and I reccomend owing it if you are a phantom fan. But don't exspect alot of sub text or romanticsm.Just my opinion though, never the less I realize you are all going to think bad thoughts about me now. Okay........... go!
Oh Dude I lOOVE this movie soo much! I've read the book and this really to me was the most faithful (or reminded me more of the book) even with all it's crazyness and different take. This is all IMHO but Robert Englund protrayed the Phantom the way I really pictured Erik (weird as it sounds!) just a little more outgoing and overthetop with the bloody killings But to me I remember the Phantom torturing people in the book soo....
Hey I love the Musical Phantom too (listening to it right now!) So if your not afraid of alittle violence and like AMAZING MUSIC go ahead and buy it. If you hate it it will just make you apprecate the Musical much more. (I saw Musical first THEN horror verison too, can't say which one I liked better!)
I'm not making any personal jabs at what you said, but I loath the ALW version of the phantom! I would go into lenghty detail but that would bore everyone!
shareALW's movie version? Or his version in general? I would agree with you about the movie but the play rocks. It's not really like this version of topic. This version is pretty violent and has a lot of shocking scenes. I think it's pretty good for as bad as those late eighties/early nineties movies were.
shareYeah this version if anything was good entertainment. Definately always open to other unique interpretation of Eriks character, and Englund did a fine job.
But the ALW, version was like, the idiots guide to Phantom, it just seemes like FOX came up with it.
[deleted]
i think its worth renting but NOT worth buying. i saw it when i was watching a friends house and raided their DVD collection. i didn't think that Erik in this movie was portrayed well in comparison to the book. i actually thought that Gerard Butler did a better job in the musical version. but it's not terrible so i would just keep looking to rent. but if you're dying to see it then i would buy it and then sell it if you dont like it.
shareno do not buy it i swear. it was really bad.
even though sadly i bought it for 11.99 dont waste your money!
I bought it for like, $10, never seen it before, and I'm also in love with Phantom and the musical and the book etc. and i thought it was alright. I think it's def. the closest version to the book that i've seen so, why not?
So if you really love The Phantom of the Opera, I would give it a try.
"It's Saturday... I need this like I need a hole in my head- another hole!"
The movie is simply mediocre. There are worse movies. It has some good moments, and it also has some average moments. It strays a lot from the original story, and that may bother some people. The production values (sets, props, costumes, etc.) are nice. It's not a bad movie to own if you want to collect different versions, and if you can get it cheap!
shareI totally agree with this comment. I thought the movie was alright, I didn't really like the way they portrayed the Phantom. Although I did like the graveyard sequence. But it was a little too gory for my tastes.
shareI am a big fan of Jill Schoelen (Popcorn) and Robert Englund. I actually enjoyed this film but I like gory films. It all depends om personal tatse I think. I enjoyed this film because eof the cast.
I'm first and foremost an ALWStage fan right now, but that changes a lot. When I saw this movie, I was quite the Lerouxist (And who knows? I may be again in two days.) and, despite the fact that I went into it thinking I'd hate it, I wsn't COMPLETELY repulsed. Despite it's flaws, it does have Faust, the graveyard, and the Masquerade... okay, three things...
But it's worth seeing just to have seen it.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW
But if you throw in the mirror, the chandelier, a mask that's NOT human skin, and botch the time travel thing, let Richard live and, while we're at it, change the names back to the originals along with the setting (Back to Paris), give us a Persian, a torture chamber, an Erik that eventually lets Christine go WITHOUT her shooting him first, botch the last name (it makes me SEETHE) and, finally, replace the gory kills with a good clean strangulation...
It wouldn't be too bad.
A grasshopper does not only turn, it hops! It hops! And it hops jolly high!
Haha. Hey! Let's see if we can get Englund for a remake. I'll start on the new script!!
sharePersonally, i love the fact that it's gory.
Spoiler: sort of
It's a more horror film, evil, sell yer sould to the devil, take on the Phantom, which , i love.
It's really more a slasher flick than an actual retooling of the original story. I saw this back in 91' when it hit video and remember not thinking it was that bad but recently saw it again on hbo back in 2005 and it still was at best an alright movie, Robert Englund kind of makes it better than what it probably should be. But some of it is still alittle fun.
share